If that description went with the work, no deception and all is good. I would actually enjoy seeing it from a horse's perspective (if true). Or, if the general public got used to "horse view" over the years (as they have for fish-eye view), no problem whatsoever.

Or, if the general public got used to "horse view" over the years... no problem whatsoever.

Obviously to do so over the years, would mean years and years of not being used to "horse view" and having people shout -- we're being deceived -- just because a photograph was not what they thought it was.

If people linked to the image on the photographer's website instead of websites that had copied the image...

Oh, come on, Isaac, you linked twice (post #65 and #71) to the page which did not contain any explanation.

Quote

... years and years of not being used to "horse view" and having people shout -- we're being deceived...

And that's why, during those "years and years" there was a caption educating people it was a fish-eye (or horse-eye). Then again, in case of a fish-eye, especially the circular one, nobody felt deceived even without a caption (intrigued, yes), as it was so obvious it was a special effect.

The problem with the originally linked photo is that it is, just like department store mirrors, distorted just so that it leaves us on the verge of wondering if we shall be in awe from mother nature, or ask for explanation (in case of department store mirrors, most of us choose to believe it is mother nature )

If people linked to the image on the photographer's website instead of websites that had copied the image...

That explains one of the images. Does it explain the Wind Curtains image as well? I tried to view that gallery but his website is so messed up that viewing the images is quite difficult.

Aside from that, it raises the question of whether a viewer should be required to look deep into a photographer's website for 'evidence' of manipulation or whether it should be more easily available. Same question Slobodan raises.

As I said earlier, in this realm - art - it doesn't matter. Do whatever you like. But if he tried to pass the image off as an 'authentic' representation of the scene for documentary or other 'record' purposes then that would be problematic.

But if he tried to pass the image off as an 'authentic' representation of the scene for documentary or other 'record' purposes then that would be problematic.

So far Slobodan has not pointed to anything that would suggest Paul Godard presented those photographs as reportage or presented himself as a photojournalist.

However, I think Slobodan is arguing about a different situation where a photograph has not been labelled as "for documentary or other 'record' purposes" (a situation where a photograph has not been labelled).

Slobodan is arguing, from the very beginning of this thread, that, unless you specifically say the opposite, presenting simply a photograph fundamentally presupposes that it is realistic. So, in my world, no need to label a realistically-looking photograph as realistic. It is so by the very definition of photography (well, at least for us who subscribe to this point of view).

So far Slobodan has not pointed to anything that would suggest Paul Godard presented those photographs as reportage or presented himself as a photojournalist.

However, I think Slobodan is arguing about a different situation where a photograph has not been labelled as "for documentary or other 'record' purposes" (a situation where a photograph has not been labelled).

I understand what Slobodan is saying. I have a differing, more liberal, position. That's fine. We're both entitled to our positions. But that's not the point. Slobodan doesn't need to produce evidence of how the image has been used. I'm saying, based on my position, that if it has been used in such a way and not disclosed, that would be unethical and deceitful. That's working from the presumption that the image is, in fact, a manipulation; which presumption seems not to be in question. Further, there's no need for Goddard to (re)present himself as a journalist for the image to be used in a documentary manner. There are plenty of opportunities for that as a stock sale.

Man, you are a textbook example of a hindsight bias. In reply #71, when it wasn't clear what kind of manipulation we are talking about, you were not so categorical as above:

Quote

So, we're looking at (famous) sand dunes.

The sinuous line of the crests hinted at sand dunes; but the angle of repose seems too extreme for loose sand.

I just hoped, in vain, that you'd move past rhetoric and actually check the angle of repose for sand (as I had).

Now that distraction is out of the way, please feel free to correct your innuendo that "the originally linked photo is ... distorted just so that it leaves us on the verge of wondering..." when the original photo is in fact grossly distorted.